I think it’s safe to say that it’s quite possible that what we have, even documents, could not be as accurate as we’d like. Considering that the New Testament is 99.99% accurately translated from the Greek documents we have (the .01% accounts for word variations that still carry the same thought, just with a different nuance) and yet people still would like to believe it wasn’t translated properly or that it contains errors regarding what actually happened, how much more likely is it that less reliable documents are not accurate- including those regarding Camelot? We have far more archaeological evidence to support the accuracy of the writings of Paul, Luke, Peter, and the other authors of the New Testament, and almost nothing for archaeological evidence to support Camelot’s existence. I think it’s quite possible that our understanding of Camelot is open to some interpretation since we don’t actually have nearly so much in reliable evidence to support when it actually existed. So, I think we can quite criticizing Scott on this point.

Actually we have extremely good documentation regarding this period. Much of it still exists in The National Archives in Kew and there are several copies of Magna Carta (1215) still extant around Britain. The King of England and Wales in 1386 was Richard II, the last of the Plantagenet Kings. There are a number of places in the UK that claim to be the site of the historical Camelot, ranging from South Wales to the North of England, a ‘Round Table’ hangs in the Great Hall in Winchester, but this is known to be of late 13th C manufacture. The long and short of it is, if Camelot existed it was during the Dark Ages and no written or solid physical evidence remains to identify it. That said, the picture is of a nice looking castle and this is a fantasy strip! I can happily go for some WSD and carry on enjoying the story, even if the main baddy is a (more or less) red dragon, the symbol of my country! And now I can’t get Carmina Burana out of my head and I don’t have my copy of Excalibur up here with me. Curses…

“The bible” has been translated inordinate times since its initial gathering. Not so many generations perhaps (though Hebrew to Greek to English carries as many if not more chances for error than running something through Google Translate to the same extent), but since just about every translation was an attempt at exerting personal will and political manipulation, literal accuracy was hardly a priority. Conjuring a “99.99%” figure from thin air means little to nothing.

Not that it particularly matters in the first place.
A collection of nonsense written by various superstitious fools obsessed with their own ancestry, gathered by those with a will to power, translated and spread by others to manipulate…
“The bible” never contained anything of worth further than a warning regarding the sort of things one ought not to write.

As I’ve often facetiously remarked… if a bunch of silly sods can take “the bible” seriously… there is no reason why I ought not to take the Mabinogion at face value too:
Never marry a woman made of flowers, for she shall stab you with a spear while you have one foot on a well and the other on a goat.

Interesting. I, too, originally assumed it was Merlin talking; but imagining that dialogue coming from Guinevere instead totally changes the feel of the page! It’ll be interesting to see which it turns out to be come Monday …

There’s a date in the corner? I’m guessing it’s been removed since, because I sure can’t see it. Maybe because Scott realised that there’s no way to fit Arthur into the 13th century without making major changes to history? But then why shouldn’t he? It’s a story after all, a fiction. Why should it be the same as our world? I’m pretty sure in our world children have been observed on an EEG, yet apparently this isn’t the case or else Nicole wouldn’t have freaked quite so much over Alex. Unless the lack of brain function is unique to him, not related to going to Dreamland. Heh, this stuff is probably all covered in the comments if I’d read them before posting this time.

Well, as to the splash-page problem, us Firefox users can just right-click, select “View Image”, and it will show it in a new tab, so we can see it in all its lovely glory. I believe there’s a similar option for Internet Explorer “Show Image”, but I couldn’t get it to work, so I only know for sure the Firefox trick works. Also, let it not be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot!

Da da da da da DUH! We’re the knights of the round table! We dance whene’er we’re able! We do routines and chorus scenes and footwork in peccable! We dine well here in Camelot we eat ham and jam and spam a lot!

We’re Knights of the Round Table,
We dance when ere we’re able,
We do routines and chorus scenes
With footwork impeccable.
We dine well here in Camelot,
We eat ham and jam and spam a lot.
We’re Knights of the Round Table,
Our shows are formidable, But many times, we’re given rhymes
That are quite unsingable.
We’re Opera mad in Camelot,
We sing from the diaphragma looooooot.
In war we’re tough and able,
Quite indefatigable,
Between our quests we sequin vests,
And impersonate Clark Gable.
It’s a busy life in Camelot,
I have to push the pram a lot.

okay 1 love the view of the double splash :D. makes me wish i was there (and that i was this talented) annnnnnnnnnd 2 i died laughing at the video. awesomeness. (once i read the lyrics Avramas posted. :3) keeep it up scott ^_^

Hah! I watched that exact clip four times last night. And Arthur needs to ask why other humans are frightened by camelot. And I understand Nic much better now. Imagine having to hear that song everytime Arthur and his knights fall asleep.

If you own a mac, the newer ones come with an application called dashboard. Bring it up and download the free daily comics widget and then add The Dreamland Chronicles to your favorites. Then Ta-Da it shows you the full 2 page splash version. The speech balloon is actually sort of ironic when you think of the previous page and the art is stunning Scott! Once again you have created a masterpiece.

Merlin obviously knows the Shadowrun street proverb, “Never do a deal with a Dragon”. It’s like doing a deal with a Deveel; if you think you got a good deal, you’d better start checking your wallet, then your number of still-attached limbs, then…

I dunno about anyone else, but… Splash page, for me.
When I hover over it, it goes full-size; un-hover and it goes back. So, pretty cool.
But there’s potential problems with the YouTube video deciding the stick it’sself over the top of the image if you’re not right at the top of the page.

Yep, Flash is silly that way. At least in Chrome and Firefox (not sure about IE as I haven’t used it for browsing beyond necessity for many years), you can’t put anything on top of Flash objects. Flash always comes out on top.

(I’m trying to resolve the e-mail problem, but gravatar.com is sort of unresponsive. Guess all’y’all got as sore a problem with .ru e-mails as we here with hotmail.com and .sg ones. How much more simpler would it’ve been back then in Camelot! “I challenge ye, sir Spammer!”)

Hey, I’ve been reading for a while now and I love your comic. I think the characters and the ideas are really well conceived. 🙂 I just have one small comment on today’s pages…and I feel kind of rotten making this my first comment…but, King Arthur, if he was real, would have lived much earlier than 1386. Quite a lot of the Arthurian literature was written in the twelfth century, and the stories had been in existence for a long time before that in the oral tradition. Tales like the Mabinogian and the Romances of Chretien de Troyes are some of the first written examples of Arthurian legend. Also, if you look at Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain (assuming it’s remotely factual) Arthur would have probably lived anywhere from 650 A.D. to 1050. I don’t know if that’s at all important to your story…part of the great thing about Arthurian legend is that it’s so open to interpretation (Stargate, anyone?). But I guess I just can’t keep my mouth shut. 🙂 Keep up the fantastic work!

Arthur actually is accepted by historians to have lived, and to have been a prominent ruler in England during the 600s. But I have to to state that he definatley wasn’t much, if any, later than that (maybe 700s) because the 600s is when the anglos/saxons/jutes moved in and set up a recorded monarchy. You can actually trace the historical kings pretty much from that point onward.

Also, one other note is that Arthur would have been Gallo-Roman, not Anglo-Saxon. This means nothing for Dreamland though, it’s just something I find interesting.

Thanks Kate and Zhub…
As mentioned a few pages back…I did some research (quite a bit actually) and also asked the fans. Go historical or mythical with Arthur.
Overwhelmingly…the fans wanted to go the more chivalry and romance version. The one of the 1300-1400 stories. Like the movie Excalibur and most disney movies.

I agreed…and worked it into the story.

Honestly…from my research…I am led to believe that Arthur is an amalgam of many stories which grew into legend.

I’m simply selecting the legend and timeline that works best for Dreamland. If Arthur actually had lived and ruled difinitively…I may have stuck closer to the source.

Hope that helps. And thank you VERY much for talking about it. I love to chat about this stuff.
🙂

Actually, are you sure the legends’ settings range from those periods? Most of the Romance Arthur seemed to be written in the 1000s and 1100s, from what I’ve seen. Later ‘writers’ supposedly just took what was written from those times and put them together. Suffice to say, the more fanciful versions came from the start of last millenium, not the middle of it.

In an case, placing him in any period after the Anglo-Saxons established their dynasty makes him some random dude in the English countryside who built his own kingdom and somehow claimed to be King of the Britons while a real King was sitting on the Anglo-Saxon throne. Not very legendary or romantic….

But, yeah… like Bob said, being a nerd… at the very least a bit too nitpicky, that’s for sure. A good story should counter such.

I have heard a little about that as well. I personally ascribe to the myth that Merlin is a half elf who learned to produce flashy and often incredible effects through what at the time was alchemy. Then again, the Arthurian legends rarely mentioned any interaction with the elves, and most of it in the form of placing blame for some thing like a bad crop, or breaking a bone, or some sickness, and so on. There are a few notable exceptions and possible exceptions, such as the Maiden of the Lake, the Fairy/Elven King (some stories claim he was a friend of Arthur through Merlin), occasionally Robin Goodfellow, known commonly as Puck the trickster, and a few “canon” stories that have come out more recently that have the elves/fairies/centaurs/dragons helping out a knight of Arthur’s Round Table. I am not going to bother predicting which “form” Merlin is going to take, but undoubtably it shall be an appearance worth remembering.

I can’t help thinking the date for Camelot should be much earlier. After 1066 we pretty much know who ruled England, and with the Bede Chronicles we know quite a few of the kings that ruled before England was a united kingdom. But…that’s me being a nerd. All in all, I love the turns the story line is taking. 🙂

I stop by Monday thru Friday every week religiously… (how else would I get my dreamland fix???) Arthur’s dates don’t matter to me the story is the key… Great work as usual Scott. I have been thinking how I found Dreamland… It all dates back to Laurell K Hamilton and her mentioning in her blog about Jenny Breeden’s Devils Panties… And that one day led me to Dreamland which in turn has led me to a different daily web comic…
On a different note I am not a big fan of Arthur… I love Gordon Dickson’s Dragon and the George and the rest of the novels in that series as well… I wonder what S. Carolinus would think of Dreamland… Or had he stopped by a few times for tea with the Elvish Kings… grinz enough rambling thank you again Scott!!!

This image would make a lovely wallpaper… 😀 How about one without the speech balloon and text box as a vote incentive?
(I know, I hardly ever comment, thanks to my lack of time, though I’m a long-time reader. I never miss a page or a vote!)

The art is beautiful but the date at the bottom makes me want to tear my hair out.
1386 A.D.?? (does nobody learn history anymore, or at least glance at wikipedia before trying to come up with actual dates?)

586 A.D. would be more like it, if this is supposed to be Real England and the “actual” King Arthur.

Either that or you’re going to need an explanation for why Richard II doesn’t have this guy locked up in the Tower of London with a dotted line around his neck (… medieval kings tended not to have too much of a sense of humor about pretenders to the throne).

They legend of king Arthur didn’t really gain all of it’s romance and magic until the 11th century or so.

I have no problem moving it a bit here or there if there’s any real evidence to do so. But all of my research (and boy did I do a LOT of research) led me to believe that this legend would work pretty much anywhere from 400-1400 AD.

For reasons that will be evident later…I chose the latter date.

Thank you all again. And please feel free to input more.
I don’t claim to know all of this. And I’m totally open to change.

Plus, by putting this scene in the real world approximately 600 years in the past, that allows Dreamland years and real world years to coincide. Yes, between dreams, a variable amount of time transpires in Dreamland, but this way it roughly equals out over the long haul. For example, you might have only a few seconds pass in Dreamland between dreams one night, but it may be two days the next night.

I suggest you keep with a “Once upon a time…” approach rather than locking into a specific time. Legends like that of Arthur exist most readily where documented history is vague or uncertain: if you feel you must give a specific time, put it in the Dark Ages (they didn’t call them “dark” because it was night, after all) where, as Peter Jackson wrote for “Lord of the Rings”, “history became legend, legend became myth…”

This seems preferable to tying “Arthur” to a well-documented period of British history: the King of England in 1386 was Richard II, about whom Shakespeare wrote his “Tragedy of Richard II”. There is not much room for a mythic or legendary king here, or in any of the history of England after the Saxon conquest (~600 AD).

I suggest your setting be “The Dark Ages: Camelot, England”. That should be vague enough to match the “real” real world while still giving you storytelling flexibility. Hal Foster’s “Prince Valiant” comic has been running on that principle since 1937, with few (if any) complaints about what kind of armor the knights wear into battle. John Boorman’s “Excalibur” took the same approach: it was set in the time when “the one god drives out the many” (which would be in the late Roman period / early Dark Ages), but no one complained about their “fantasy armor” modeled on that of the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance.

With regard to specific references to “600 years”, I think that might be the easiest to fix: a story continuity fix to change those references to “over 1000 years” unless this would require an even bigger deus ex machina to fix even bigger continuity problems.

I can see where you could really start painting yourself into a corner by inserting more interactions with people/events from the “real” world: it seems to me that the story of Dreamworld Chronicles hangs on the reader’s acceptance that the Dreamworld and our world co-exist, just as the world of “Harry Potter” could exist alongside the “muggle” world without we muggles being any the wiser. Adding things that make the real world of the story seem real (e.g., Nicole has Daniel sign a waiver when Daniel wants to let Alex keep sleeping) help this, while it seems to me things that make the real world seem unreal (e.g., Arthur alive during the reign of Richard II) can do the opposite.

I’m not sure why Arthur must reign after 1000 AD in order to preserve Dreamland’s story continuity, but the “Dark Ages” can be considered to have lasted from the decline of the Roman empire (5th-6th Century) to the Renaissance (14th Century): is that long enough to keep the Dreamland story intact?

If not, is there any way to bridge from the time of Arthur to whatever historical interactions follow through use of the temporal elasticity that you have already shown between Dreamland and the real world? For example, in Chapter 2, Alex spends a whole day in the real world, while only 30 seconds elapses in Dreamland. Could you use this to mold “real world” time to match Dreamworld time as needed?

Now to argue against the statement I made just above (so much for establishing my integrity), you have mentioned 600 years only in reference to Dreamland years. The readers don’t know how many days there are in a Dreamland Year, or even if a day/year in Dreamland equals a day/year in the waking world. Sure, they can reasonably assume that years are the same in both places, but their assumption could be incorrect.

Whatever you do, don’t give up and rewrite The Dreamland Chronicles from scratch! 🙂

I agree. Time in Dreamland as opposed to our world doesn’t really seem to flow the same. Sometimes Alex can wake up and be gone for 30 seconds in Dreamland, other times the entire night, and when he and Felicity leap from Nick’s tower back in Chapter 5 or so (I own all three books so I’m more accustomed to when things happen in books as opposed to specific chapters) he wakes up with him and Felicity still falling, so who knows when exactly 600 Dreamland years would be in the past. It could easily extend to the 5th-6th century in our world. The Narnia books have an odd sense of time as well. The Pevensie children live long enough in our world to see Narnia not only exist for over a millennium but to see its end.

As to all this arguing when Arthur should take place, I don’t know much about Arthur but from what I can tell, the Arthur in the 5th-6th century is more grounded in reality wheras the Arthur in the time Scott has listed features Merlin, Excalibur, and all the other fantasy elements that are present within the comic, so he is within his right to place Arthur in the 1300s.

“On second thought, let us not go to Camelot: it is a silly place.” One of the funniest movies ever made. Monty Python simply knew how to write humor(though how you coudl fit Tim the Enchanter into the story would be a bit of a problem).

I love this comic, totally agree that you shouldn’t dwell on the historical part too much… I believe the closest to the name Arthur comes the name of a local warlord, who fought under the name Arth (bear) which may have been combined with the Latin word for bear Ursis, I personally believe Arthurian legends are a combination of stories over centuries, caught by some very talented writers, who used their own creativity and artistic freedom to change times, weapons and for example the huge castles like famous Camelot, which is just what I’m seeing in this comic!!
My many thanks to you Scott!!

sorry for the doublepost, but this needs to be said as well:
O Fortuna: brilliant.
Excallibur: awesome.
Monty Python: Pure genious.. my friends still call me spamming “we found a witch may we BURN her?, WHO are the BRITT’NS? not to mention: “NI!” or “your arms off!” “No it isn’t!”

I think everyone understands and supports your decision to portray a “chivalric” version of King Arthur. It’s true that plate armor in the “Dark Ages” would be an anachronism, and yet lots of retellings of the story, from Excalibur to Camelot to The Sword in the Stone, use it anyway. You’ll note that none of those versions tried to justify it by moving the date up to the 14th century. By trying to avoid the anachronism, you’ve created a MUCH bigger factual inaccuracy. It’s easier to ignore an anachronism (especially given the nature of the story) than it is to ignore something that makes absolutely no sense historically. Placing King Arthur in 1386 is much harder to swallow than placing plate armor in 686, for at least three very big reasons:

1) We already know who was ruling England in 1386, and it wasn’t King Arthur.

2) One of the most important pieces of the Arthurian legend, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s “History of the Kings of Britain”, was written c. 1136.

3) King Arthur supposedly held off the Saxon invaders. By 1386, the Saxons had already ruled Britain for 400+ years and then been replaced by the Normans over 300 years previously.

I don’t know how you could have done a lot of research into King Arthur and not be aware of those facts. To put this in an American perspective, imagine you’re writing a story similar to “The Patriot”, about a heroic American fighting against the Redcoats, and you want him to own a six-shooter. However, six-shooters weren’t invented until the 1800s, so you decide to move the date of your story forward to 1890. You haven’t solved the problem, you’ve just created a much bigger problem that’s impossible to ignore. That’s why so many people have been critiquing your date. It’s not because they don’t like your interpretation of the legends, it’s because a date of 1386 is impossible to reconcile with ANY interpretation.

This is my take. All the time I’ve been reading this story I’ve been able to say to myself “this could be real.” Everything makes sense, it feels right. The story is there and works. I like that. Arthur around 1400 breaks me out of that feeling hard. I like being able to use my willing suspension of disbelief to get immersed in a story. I just cannot believe King Arthur near 1400. There is another King who would dislike having someone else claim his throne. Of course, that COULD be part of YOUR story. I don’t know.

But IF Arthur is supposed to be the King of Britain Arthur rather than simply a duke with delusions of grandeur, the near 1400 year date just does NOT match our history.

Now, in the end of course, this IS your story and you must decide what to do with it. I’ll be along for the ride either way.

Note – Yes, I know that both Plate Armor (which I’m betting you have characters designed with and ready to show us) and true castles were NOT around during the age of the historical Arthur. But as Arthur’s Camelot was LOST it is not TOO difficult to just say that both were something that Arthur or Merlin or such and such made to promote the greatness of Camelot, and they were lost when Camelot fell.

Scott:
My father is a retired high school history teacher. He taught history (and geography, and a few other subjects) for about 35 years before retiring, and has been preaching to me about dates, times, facts and figures for the last 37 years.
So needless to say, I couldn’t care less about the historical accuracy of the date you’ve chosen. 😉

However, I would suggest that removing the date and going with a vague reference (“Middle Ages” would probably cover it to everyone’s satisfaction) will go along way to silencing all the whiners and naysayers and nitpickers making everyone happy (or at least coming as close as possible), while maintaining your continuity.

not a fan of the mouseover enlargement. It makes scrolling down the page obnoxious. at least it will be gone soon. It also expands outside the borders of the screen and doesnt scroll horizontally well.